This May 8 blog about Rep. Jennifer Carroll of Jacksonville filing proposed legislation relating to Internet cafes stated that Carroll “tried to change the law earlier this year in an effort to legalize the games,” and the measure was subsequently withdrawn “at the urging of party leaders.“

In requesting a correction, Carroll said that the bill was filed by a member of her staff without her approval and without her reviewing the language after Carroll had requested that a “placeholder” bill be filed that could be completed later.

Carroll said that, “the bill which was erroneously filed sought to increase regulatory requirements for this industry,” not to address its legal status, and she had no interest in moving it forward. She said party leaders had nothing to do with her decision to pull the proposed legislation.

The columnist maintains confidence in the accuracy of his source, who said a party leader had expressed concerns to Carroll about the legislation being a conflict for Carroll, whose company has done consulting work for Allied Veterans of the World Inc., but the writer is unable to substantiate whether the bill was withdrawn because of that conversation.

On Tuesday, the Jacksonville City Council will hold a public hearing on legislation that would ban machines that display spinning reels or any slot-like machines in Duval County. Internet cafe owners are working hard to drum up opposition to the measure, encouraging patrons to e-mail city council members at dedicated computers in some locations, and in some cases, promising $10 worth of sweepstakes entries to patrons who agree to ride the bus to City Hall and speak in opposition to the bill.

Council members might consider asking speakers if they anticipate receiving anything in exchange for their appearance to oppose the measure. And, based on the actions of one elected representative, they may want to consider asking that same question of other elected officials who approach them on the topic.

State Rep. Jennifer Carroll, R-Jacksonville, tried to change the law earlier this year in an effort to legalize the games many experts say are operating within a grey area.

Carroll introduced HB 1185 in February of this year, just before the start of the legislative session. It was withdrawn days later at the urging of party leaders who were concerned Carroll had an obvious conflict of interest. The legislation would have legalized the sweepstakes industry, setting up guidelines and requiring independent analysis of machines used in the games. An early version included a provision specifically excluding charitable nonprofit organizations from regulation — exactly what Allied Veterans of the World, Inc., purports to be.

Carroll, herself a veteran, confirmed to the Times-Union this week that her company, 3 N. & J.C. Corporation, of which she is president, does consulting and public relations work for Allied Veterans. She has also starred in a commercial on behalf of Allied Veterans, a group she commends for providing “money to get veterans to Veterans Administration hospitals.”

It’s a rather disturbing fact that a sitting legislator would file a bill on behalf of a business she directly benefits from. Her actions have interesting parallels to that of former House Speaker Ray Sansom, R-Destin, who lost his speakership and resigned from the legislature after being indicted.

Sansom’s mistake? Championing legislation that benefitted his employer and a top donor.

While the most well known, Allied Veterans is not the only player in the sweepstakes market.

On San Jose Boulevard, one of Jacksonville’s most well-travelled fairways, “Players” has a marquee advertising “Vegas style internet sweepstakes.” Pop in and you’ll be treated to a massage special.Other sites around town proclaim “Win money here” and “777” — obvious attempts to convey the impression that Vegas-style slot machines are on-site.

This unregulated and untaxed phenomena has emerged to directly compete with the lottery and pari-mutuel industry, something that will ultimately impact businesses and taxpayers around the state as revenue declines.

Perhaps more concerning is the possibility that the presence of the games might put the state’s Seminole gaming contract — and the $300 million it promises to the state annually — at risk.

That’s not a chance Jacksonville, or the Florida Legislature, can take.

A version of this column appeared in print on Sunday, May 9, 2010.

I welcome your feedback. You can also interact with me on Facebook and Twitter.

Mr. Harding thanks for correcting the heading of this post; however, your content is still inaccurate. You and I had a face-to-face conversation with me and my staff regarding this legislation. I shared with you that I was informed that this bill was a shell bill, and you know that a shell bill is an innocuous bill with not substance. I also told you that the language finally placed in the agency bill was not read by me before the bill was submitted for filing. I and my staff shared with you that this bill was filed without my approval. When I was informed by my staff that the bill was filed, I immediately told them it was not my priority and that the bill needed to be withdrawn. I also shared with you that no party leader urged me prior to pulling this bill to do so. I also offered to have a face-to-face with your so called party leader to clear up this statement, for which you stated that “you did not want to reveal your source.” Also, the legislation that was filed did not seek to legalize an industry that is already legal to operate. After your initial article, as I mentioned to you, I looked at the language of the bill and saw that the language would have given the Department of Agriculture more power to regulate this industry, not to legalize it. I am very disappointed of your insistence on distorting the facts. Rep. Jennifer Carroll

Harding:
As a former journalist, I have to give some input here. When I used to do stories, I never EVER said something as a fact without quoting the source. And if that source wasn't available for comment, I stated that person wasn't available for comment.
If another reporter happened to run into the source somewhere and "got the information", I certainly would never use it unless I stated that the information was "according to" so and so.
To state something as a fact is irresponsible journalism because you have to attribute the information to someone if you write it as a fact. As a columnist you can take a few more liberties, but only when they deal with your opinion.
As I said a minute ago, I'm very disturbed a State Representative would support an operation like Allied, so I have learned something from your blog.

I think you need to go into Allied Veterans and look around sometime. You won't find people on the internet, you'll find people cramming bill after bill into the walls gambling their money away.
They are a breeding ground for gambling addiction, and I'm proof of that. People don't go into there to buy internet time, they go in there to gamble.
And it disturbs me that someone of your caliber would be associated with them. I've lost thousands in that place, as have many others. I'm so depressed now after reading your post, I think I'm gonna throw up.

Game Promotions: Prohibits DOACS from accepting filing of copies of rules, prizes, prize categories, & regulations of game promotion from certain persons, firms, corporations, or associations; requires operators of electronic game promotions to file certifications from independent testing laboratories; requires operators of certain game promotions to establish trust accounts with balances equal to total value of all prizes offered; requires officials of financial institutions holding trust accounts to set forth account numbers of trust accounts; authorizes operators to obtain surety bonds; provides that moneys held in trust account may be withdrawn only upon written approval by DOACS; provides date for final determination of winners; deletes provision that exempts activities of certain organizations from requirements of operating game promotion; provides that certain statutory provisions do not prohibit use of certain electronic devices or computer terminals to conduct or display results of game promotion; provides that each specified electronic device or computer terminal is separate game promotion; requires statement of physical location & separate filing fee for each device or terminal; requires operators of game promotions that use certain electronic devices or computer terminals to comply with certain requirements.

Effective Date: July 1, 2010

Last Event: Withdrawn prior to introduction on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 11:03 AM